Fairness In Media

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher and Bill Maher pointed out that George W. Bush has been bashing the state of Massachusetts, to which General Wesley Clark responded,

We have two big problems in this country. First of all, we got rid of the Fairness In Media Law under Ronald Reagan. Before that, you had to give equal time. Once that was gone, then you didn't have to have equal time, so we got a lot of this hate radio coming on. And it's entertaining, and people listen. And the other thing is, after 9/11, that strike really shocked our media, and we did not hold accountable. You've seen the apologies in a lot of the newspapers. They had the information; they knew that the intelligence wasn't solid on why we should have gone into Iraq. They didn't challenge the President... Really, it's only in the last two months that the news media's really started to hold him accountable... Watch what George Bush quotes from John Kerry. He takes a phrase... completely out of meaning. He changes the meaning of it... There's a Republican message machine that your friend Ann Coulter's part of. When Karl Rove snaps his fingers, boy they all respond... Democrats believe in process; we want both sides of the issue...

This is the second time in two weeks I've heard someone on Bill Maher's show talk about the Fairness In Media Act so I looked up Cato's definition:

The so-called Fairness Doctrine was put in place by the FCC in 1949 to require broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." After coming under attack by the courts, the FCC discarded the rule in 1987 because, contrary to its purpose, the doctrine failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. Still, regulatory revisionists seem to pretend that the world would be a better place if government officials sat in judgment of "fairness" on the broadcast airwaves and have attempted to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine a few times since it was abolished. By requiring, under threat of potential license revocation, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine argue that more opinions will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered.

But the notion that the threat of regulation will encourage a greater diversity of viewpoints has been flatly contradicted by the facts. After decades of academic and judicial scrutiny, it was revealed that instead of expanding the range of viewpoints on the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech. With the threat of potential FCC retaliation hanging over their necks, most broadcasters were more reluctant to air controversial opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience did not want to hear. Alternatively, they feared they would not be able to air enough, or the right type of, responses to make regulators happy. Consequently, the Fairness Doctrine actually stifled the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, made free speech less free. As the FCC noted in repealing the doctrine in 1987, it "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

Nonetheless, there is an energetic effort underway to Renew the Fairness Doctrine:

For many years, television and radio stations were required to give equal time to opposing sides of public or political issues to ensure the American public heard all sides of a debate. It was a requirement made by the Federal Communications Commission that came to be known as The Fairness Doctrine.

In 1986, a federal court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not have the force of law and could be overturned without congressional approval. Congress passed a bill to make the doctrine law but the bill was vetoed by President Reagan in 1987 and the Fairness Doctrine was abolished.

Since then, the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage. Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs, and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making.

And American listeners and viewers agree. A recent poll of likely voters shows overwhelming support across the political and demographic spectrum for restoring rules requiring fairness and balance on the public airwaves.

Makes me want to listen to Eminem's "Mosh"...

Comments

[Elizabeth]

I really wish I could remember where I read it, but someone said in the last couple of days that there are people out there who spend more time each day listening to Rush Limbaugh than Branch Davidians listened to David Koresh. Fear THAT.

[Account Deleted]

Each person clickity click clicking away at a little machine that they are sucked into like a fly to light. Sorry, but that's just entirely too open for me. This is a Brave New World turning out as prophecy of our immediate future. There are at least three things about Kevin's comment that made Rohit smile: the invocation of physics, the notion that 30 is relative, and the thought of seeing you next week.

porno video sikiş sikiş porno izle porno porno izle sikiş dizi izle
sikiş